12 ms·

Eh, everyone has been moving goalposts. First it was "flatten the curve" to prevent hospital overrun. Then at some point it became "no one can ever get covid

by eric_b 5y ago

Eh, everyone has been moving goalposts. First it was "flatten the curve" to prevent hospital overrun. Then at some point it became "no one can ever get covid again" and we did wild things like close schools even if a person so much as got near a person with COVID. I don't think one side has a monopoly on losing trust, behaving badly, or making anti-science decisions.

lovich 5y ago
When did it ever get to no one can ever get Covid again? We tried to “flatten the curve” and still had large spikes. After we got some semblance of control we only kept infections down with lockdowns and other measures. This is a tech based forum, surely everyone here has experience with a boss who complains that he’s paying you when the system never breaks, not knowing that it’s not breaking because of active measures being taken to prevent it
hairofadog 5y ago
> Then at some point it became "no one can ever get covid again" and we did wild things like close schools even if a person so much as got near a person with COVID. Anecdotally, I have never heard anyone make the argument "no one can ever get covid again" nor heard of a school being closed because "a person got near a person with COVID".
- angelzen 5y ago
  Anectodally, last school year all in-person schools were closed in WA state. https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-extends-school-closures-rest-2019-20-school-year https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-extends-school...
  - hairofadog 5y ago
    Sorry, yeah, I should have been more clear: I have heard of schools being closed, just not for the reason that "someone got near someone with covid". Inslee's statement says the reason is due to "increasing rates of COVID-19 related infections, hospitalizations and death", but maybe you have additional information about the real reason.
betterunix2 5y ago
Closing schools and so forth was part of the flatten-the-curve effort. Really though, the CDC has been driven by the available science and by the reality of the pandemic, and when the CDC's guidance has changed it has invariably been in response to new data on COVID or to changing conditions (e.g. community spread, N95 mask availability, new variants). It is overly generous to speak of "one side" as if there is another equally valid side to compare with. The CDC is not a political institution and they always cite published research in their guidance and public statements about COVID-19. The anti-mask/anti-vax crowd are going around spreading one fantasy after another, coming up with new and ever more outrageous conspiracy theories and excuses for refusing to cooperate; none of their claims have ever been based in reality, and that is why the story changes on a daily basis and why there are so many contradictory claims being made. To put this in perspective, the high-level direction of the CDC's guidance has, since the very beginning of the pandemic, been to reduce the rate at which COVID spreads; the changes in their guidance have been about the details. The anti-mask/anti-vax crowd has gone from denying that there is a virus to saying that the virus is no worse than the flu to claiming that masks would suffocate them to whining about how mask mandates violate to their freedom and that they would rather die of COVID than comply with a mask mandate. They went from heaping praise on the last President simply because he was in office when the vaccines were first becoming available to complaining that the current President was being given too much credit for the vaccination effort to claiming that the vaccine is made from aborted fetuses, that the vaccine alters DNA, that Bill Gates inserted microchips into the vaccine, that the vaccine causes people to become magnetized, and that vaccine mandates are proof that the vaccine is the "mark of the beast."
- angelzen 5y ago
  Frankly, I am getting tired of labels. I one side of the debate is anti-mask / anti-vax crowd, then the other side is anti-living-life / pro-cower-in-the-basement-forever crowd.
  - crooked-v 5y ago
    No "cowering" would be necessary if people would just get vaccinated.
xg15 5y ago
I don't know, I never had an issue with that point. "Flatten the curve" is alright, but then what? It would be stupid to "flatten the curve" for a while, then call "mission accomplished" and pretend covid is over if that causes the situation to immediately go critical again. So far the playbook seems to have been: 1) Flatten the curve: Use lockdowns, masks and social distancing measures to maintain a situation where hospitals can still cope. This is not a one-time goal, it's an ongoing effort: As long as there was no vaccine, "no significant transmission right now" does not mean everything is back to normal - because if measures are lifted, transmission can quickly increase and become critical again. 2) Because the situation in 1) seriously sucks for everyone, try to come up with solutions to end the pandemic permanently (or at least make it permanently nonthreatening for the health system so we can leave "pandemic mode" and treat it as an ordinary disease). So far the most obvious strategy for this is vaccination - hence the increasing push to get everyone vaccinated. 3) Evolutionary pressures on the virus might cause the vaccines to become less effective. This unfortunately calls into question whether 2) is really able to bring an end to the pandemic. If this is really the case, then new plans are needed, such as boosters, new vaccines, I don't know. This stuff is currently being figured out. 1) and 2) does not seem like "moving the goalposts" to me. The goals were the same since the beginning of the pandemic, though of course the situation and circumstances were changing (you can only keep up a lockdown for so long, vaccines changed from "vague hope" to "viable strategy", etc) 3) is a new development that was apparently somewhat unexpected (I remember the virus was being talked about as relatively mutation resistant, which evidently wasn't the case.) - but this was simply new knowledge and new developments that might require a change in strategy - the overall goal to get out of this mess (by either eradicating covid or make it nonthreatening) did not change IMO. Of course if this goal turns out to be permanently unarchievable, the goalpost shifting might start...
- angelzen 5y ago
  There is no scientific proof, e.g. RCT, that lockdowns work. When did 'stay at home if sick, live life otherwise' become obsoleted? Edit: "3) is a new development that was apparently somewhat unexpected". That evolutionary pressures on the virus might^H^H^H will cause the vaccines to become less effective was and is the #1 concern of the critics of mass mRNA vaccination campaigns.
bamboozled 5y ago
The curve did need to be flattened though?
- ozfive 5y ago
  Yes so that bottom line our healthcare system wouldn't collapse along with you know saving lives that otherwise you have been lost.
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    That's what I'm saying? Bit trigger happy there? :)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
barbazoo 5y ago
The messaging now at least here in BC is all about increasing vaccination coverage. To a degree that I'm reminded of Goodhart's law "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". Who cares how many people are vaccinated, what the goal should be is reducing hospitalizations, deaths and long-Covid for the good of people (don't die) and that of the health care system (ICUs not overrun). If there's a community who doesn't want to get vaccinated, who cares as long as the overall goal is still reached. We're focusing too much on cases and vaccinations to reduce cases at the moment in my view. We've lost touch with what's important, at least our messaging doesn't reflect that.
- avhon1 5y ago
  > the goal should be is reducing hospitalizations, deaths and long-Covid for the good of people (don't die) and that of the health care system (ICUs not overrun). I agree, that's an excellent goal! Universal vaccination seems to be an excellent means of achieving it. Besides that, what other thrusts would you like to see?
  - barbazoo 5y ago
    Well, see, universal vaccination I would say is sufficient to achieve this goal but not required. I wonder if it would be better to focus on vaccination coverage in hotspots where we do have issues with hospitalizations. What triggered me to wrote this is articles like this one [0] that, in my opinion, don't do anything to convince anybody to get vaccinated. All they do is shame people or groups of people. And what's missing from this article? While it talks about case numbers > Manitoba's Southern Health region, which encompasses the RM of Stanley, made up roughly half of the province's new COVID-19 cases in recent weeks, but is only home to around 15 per cent of the population. it completely leaves out what's actually going on in the hospitals in that particular region. Case numbers aren't meaningful. Especially with vaccines that are great at preventing serious symptoms but only good at preventing spread. Don't get me wrong, I'm vaccinated and I believe everybody should be. But the vaccines aren't gonna protect us from ever getting the virus. We all will get it. What matters is to strategically focus on vulnerable groups and difficult geographical areas. But unfortunately we seem to be looking for a one size fits all approach. But maybe people in rural Manitoba need to be taken care of differently than people in urban Toronto. [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-covid-19-stanley-winkler-morden-southern-health-wfpcbc-cbc-1.6192673 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-covid-19-st...

by eric_b 5y ago

lovich 5y ago

When did it ever get to no one can ever get Covid again? We tried to “flatten the curve” and still had large spikes. After we got some semblance of control we only kept infections down with lockdowns and other measures. This is a tech based forum, surely everyone here has experience with a boss who complains that he’s paying you when the system never breaks, not knowing that it’s not breaking because of active measures being taken to prevent it

hairofadog 5y ago

> Then at some point it became "no one can ever get covid again" and we did wild things like close schools even if a person so much as got near a person with COVID. Anecdotally, I have never heard anyone make the argument "no one can ever get covid again" nor heard of a school being closed because "a person got near a person with COVID".

angelzen 5y ago
Anectodally, last school year all in-person schools were closed in WA state. https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-extends-school-closures-rest-2019-20-school-year https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-extends-school...
- hairofadog 5y ago
  Sorry, yeah, I should have been more clear: I have heard of schools being closed, just not for the reason that "someone got near someone with covid". Inslee's statement says the reason is due to "increasing rates of COVID-19 related infections, hospitalizations and death", but maybe you have additional information about the real reason.

betterunix2 5y ago

Closing schools and so forth was part of the flatten-the-curve effort. Really though, the CDC has been driven by the available science and by the reality of the pandemic, and when the CDC's guidance has changed it has invariably been in response to new data on COVID or to changing conditions (e.g. community spread, N95 mask availability, new variants). It is overly generous to speak of "one side" as if there is another equally valid side to compare with. The CDC is not a political institution and they always cite published research in their guidance and public statements about COVID-19. The anti-mask/anti-vax crowd are going around spreading one fantasy after another, coming up with new and ever more outrageous conspiracy theories and excuses for refusing to cooperate; none of their claims have ever been based in reality, and that is why the story changes on a daily basis and why there are so many contradictory claims being made. To put this in perspective, the high-level direction of the CDC's guidance has, since the very beginning of the pandemic, been to reduce the rate at which COVID spreads; the changes in their guidance have been about the details. The anti-mask/anti-vax crowd has gone from denying that there is a virus to saying that the virus is no worse than the flu to claiming that masks would suffocate them to whining about how mask mandates violate to their freedom and that they would rather die of COVID than comply with a mask mandate. They went from heaping praise on the last President simply because he was in office when the vaccines were first becoming available to complaining that the current President was being given too much credit for the vaccination effort to claiming that the vaccine is made from aborted fetuses, that the vaccine alters DNA, that Bill Gates inserted microchips into the vaccine, that the vaccine causes people to become magnetized, and that vaccine mandates are proof that the vaccine is the "mark of the beast."

angelzen 5y ago
Frankly, I am getting tired of labels. I one side of the debate is anti-mask / anti-vax crowd, then the other side is anti-living-life / pro-cower-in-the-basement-forever crowd.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  No "cowering" would be necessary if people would just get vaccinated.

xg15 5y ago

I don't know, I never had an issue with that point. "Flatten the curve" is alright, but then what? It would be stupid to "flatten the curve" for a while, then call "mission accomplished" and pretend covid is over if that causes the situation to immediately go critical again. So far the playbook seems to have been: 1) Flatten the curve: Use lockdowns, masks and social distancing measures to maintain a situation where hospitals can still cope. This is not a one-time goal, it's an ongoing effort: As long as there was no vaccine, "no significant transmission right now" does not mean everything is back to normal - because if measures are lifted, transmission can quickly increase and become critical again. 2) Because the situation in 1) seriously sucks for everyone, try to come up with solutions to end the pandemic permanently (or at least make it permanently nonthreatening for the health system so we can leave "pandemic mode" and treat it as an ordinary disease). So far the most obvious strategy for this is vaccination - hence the increasing push to get everyone vaccinated. 3) Evolutionary pressures on the virus might cause the vaccines to become less effective. This unfortunately calls into question whether 2) is really able to bring an end to the pandemic. If this is really the case, then new plans are needed, such as boosters, new vaccines, I don't know. This stuff is currently being figured out. 1) and 2) does not seem like "moving the goalposts" to me. The goals were the same since the beginning of the pandemic, though of course the situation and circumstances were changing (you can only keep up a lockdown for so long, vaccines changed from "vague hope" to "viable strategy", etc) 3) is a new development that was apparently somewhat unexpected (I remember the virus was being talked about as relatively mutation resistant, which evidently wasn't the case.) - but this was simply new knowledge and new developments that might require a change in strategy - the overall goal to get out of this mess (by either eradicating covid or make it nonthreatening) did not change IMO. Of course if this goal turns out to be permanently unarchievable, the goalpost shifting might start...

angelzen 5y ago
There is no scientific proof, e.g. RCT, that lockdowns work. When did 'stay at home if sick, live life otherwise' become obsoleted? Edit: "3) is a new development that was apparently somewhat unexpected". That evolutionary pressures on the virus might^H^H^H will cause the vaccines to become less effective was and is the #1 concern of the critics of mass mRNA vaccination campaigns.

bamboozled 5y ago

The curve did need to be flattened though?

ozfive 5y ago
Yes so that bottom line our healthcare system wouldn't collapse along with you know saving lives that otherwise you have been lost.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  That's what I'm saying? Bit trigger happy there? :)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

barbazoo 5y ago

The messaging now at least here in BC is all about increasing vaccination coverage. To a degree that I'm reminded of Goodhart's law "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". Who cares how many people are vaccinated, what the goal should be is reducing hospitalizations, deaths and long-Covid for the good of people (don't die) and that of the health care system (ICUs not overrun). If there's a community who doesn't want to get vaccinated, who cares as long as the overall goal is still reached. We're focusing too much on cases and vaccinations to reduce cases at the moment in my view. We've lost touch with what's important, at least our messaging doesn't reflect that.

avhon1 5y ago
> the goal should be is reducing hospitalizations, deaths and long-Covid for the good of people (don't die) and that of the health care system (ICUs not overrun). I agree, that's an excellent goal! Universal vaccination seems to be an excellent means of achieving it. Besides that, what other thrusts would you like to see?
- barbazoo 5y ago
  Well, see, universal vaccination I would say is sufficient to achieve this goal but not required. I wonder if it would be better to focus on vaccination coverage in hotspots where we do have issues with hospitalizations. What triggered me to wrote this is articles like this one [0] that, in my opinion, don't do anything to convince anybody to get vaccinated. All they do is shame people or groups of people. And what's missing from this article? While it talks about case numbers > Manitoba's Southern Health region, which encompasses the RM of Stanley, made up roughly half of the province's new COVID-19 cases in recent weeks, but is only home to around 15 per cent of the population. it completely leaves out what's actually going on in the hospitals in that particular region. Case numbers aren't meaningful. Especially with vaccines that are great at preventing serious symptoms but only good at preventing spread. Don't get me wrong, I'm vaccinated and I believe everybody should be. But the vaccines aren't gonna protect us from ever getting the virus. We all will get it. What matters is to strategically focus on vulnerable groups and difficult geographical areas. But unfortunately we seem to be looking for a one size fits all approach. But maybe people in rural Manitoba need to be taken care of differently than people in urban Toronto. [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-covid-19-stanley-winkler-morden-southern-health-wfpcbc-cbc-1.6192673 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-covid-19-st...